The Lev at Winchester
1112 Smith Dr, Alvin, TX 77511 · Government - Hospital district · 94 certified beds · (281) 331-6125 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 17.9% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.4% | 3.0% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.1% | 2.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.4% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.8% | 14.0% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.0% | 18.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.1% | 3.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.0% | 13.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.3% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.4% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.5% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 11.9% | 25.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.0% | 12.3% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.34 | 2.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.63 | 2.06 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Met the expected recovery: 47.6% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 21 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 58% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 51% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy at close to weekday levels right through the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 7.7–17.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 47.6% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 52.4% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 47.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.23 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 94 beds and averages 83.5 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.98 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.14 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.83 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.61 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.13 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.14 to 0.13 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-05 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — patternAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the residents were given the right to participate in the development and implementation of their plans of care for 1 of 9 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for participating in care planning. The facility did not conduct a meeting nor invite Resident #1 to participate in resident care planning meetings after his quarterly review assessments on 5/23/25, 8/22/25 and 10/29/25. This failure could place residents at risk for a loss of independence, psychosocial well-being and the opportunity for them to participate in the planning of their care. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #1's admission record generated on 12/5/25 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses of mental disorder (characterized by a clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotional regulation, or behavior), vascular dementia (a decline in thinking skills due to reduced blood flow to the brain, often from strokes or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-08-08 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to use the services of a registered nurse for at least eight consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week for 4 of 5 months (January, February, April, and May of 2025) reviewed for nursing services. The facility failed to ensure a registered nurse worked on 1 day out of 31 days in January of 2025.The facility failed to ensure a registered nurse worked on 3 days out of 28 days in February of 2025 The facility failed to ensure a registered nurse worked on 1 day out of 30 days in April 2025.The facility failed to ensure that a registered nurse worked 2 days out of 31 days in May of 2025 These failures could place residents at risk by leaving staff without supervisory coverage for RN specific nursing activities and for coordination of events such as emergency care and disasters.Findings included: Record review of the CMS PBJ Staffing Data Report for FY Quarter 2 2025 (January 1- March 31) with run date 07/28/2025 revealed, the facility was triggered for four or more days within the quarter for no RN hours on the following days in 2025:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-08 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 (Resident #58) of 7 residents reviewed for quality of care. -Resident #58 developed a sacral (bone at the base of the spine and the surrounding area) wound on 08/01/25 and the facility did not get physician orders to treat the sacral wound until 08/05/25. This failure placed resident at risk for further skin breakdown to the sacral wound, infections, and pain.Findings: Record review of Resident #58's face sheet dated 08/05/26 revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident diagnoses included right fracture femur (thigh bone), dementia (brain disorder that causes problems with thinking, memory, and behavior), depression, and fibromyalgia (pain, fatigue, sleep problems, mood issues, and difficulty concentrating).…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-08 · tag F0621 — isolatedTreat residents equally regarding transfer, discharge, and provision of services for all residents, regardless of payment source
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to establish, maintain and implement identical policies and practices regarding transfer and discharge and the provision of services for all individuals regardless of source of payment for 1 (Resident #5) of 4 residents reviewed for equal access to quality care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #5's right to stay in the facility and he was transferred to the hospital because his payor source ended. The failure could place residents at risk of a loss of self-determination and dignity.Findings included: Record review of Resident #5's face sheet dated 8/6/25 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included synovitis and tenosynovitis (painful inflammatory conditions affecting the joints and tendons) of the left ankle and foot, idiopathic aseptic necrosis (the death of bone tissue due to a lack of blood supply) of left ankle, acute kidney failure, morbid obesity, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (glucose levels in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-08 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 2 (Resident#27 and Resident #31) of 14 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident#27's significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE] accurately reflected her lack of natural teeth in her oral cavity. The facility failed to ensure Resident #31's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] accurately reflected her decaying and lack of natural teeth in her oral cavity. This failure could place residents at risk for receiving inadequate care and services due to inaccurate assessments. The findings included: Record review of Resident #27's face sheet dated 08/06/25 revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included Dementia, history of falling, major depressive disorders, lack of coordination, generalized anxiety, psychotic disturbance, and mood disturbance. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infections for 1 (Resident #65) of 7 residents reviewed for infection control.-LVN F was carrying soiled linen in hand from Resident #65's room up the hallway and placed it inside of the soiled barrel on the hallway. This failure placed residents, staff members, and visitors at risk for cross contamination and infections. Findings:Record review of Resident #65's face sheet dated 08/06/25 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and again on 07/14/25. Resident diagnoses included heart failure, hypertension (high blood pressure), chronic kidney disease, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder (nerve damage that impairs the bladder's ability to store and release urine properly), type 2 diabetes mellitus…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-28 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure in accordance with State and Federal laws,all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permitted only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for 3 of 3 nurse medication carts reviewed for medications . 1. The facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 nurses' medication carts did not contain expired oral medications. 2. The facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 nurse's medication carts did not contain expired suppository medication. These failures could place residents at risk for altered effectiveness of the medication and decreased therapeutic outcomes, requiring medical intervention. The findings include: During an observation on 06/27/24 at 1:58 p.m. of medication cart 1 of 3 with LVN A revealed the following: a blister packet of Ondansetron HCL 4mg 1 tab every 8 hours PRN and expired on 12/27/23. a blister packet of Ondansetron HCL 4mg 1 tab every 8 hours PRN and expired on 05/03/24. a blister packet of Ondansetron HCL 4mg 1 tab every 8 hours PRN and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-28 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — isolatedHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the services of a registered nurse were used for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week for 1 out of 30 days reviewed June 2024. The facility failed to ensure RN coverage for Sunday, 06/02/2024 . This failure could place residents at risk for not having adequate qualified personnel in case of a health crisis. Findings include: Record review of CMS' PBJ Staffing Data Report, (payroll-based journal nurse staffing and non-nurse staffing datasets provide information submitted by nursing homes including rehabilitation services on a quarterly basis) FY Quarter 2, 2024, run date 06/02/2024, reflected Low Weekend Staffing was triggered (Submitted Weekend Staffing data is excessively low). Record review of the monthly staffing schedule dated June 2024, reflected no RN coverage on 06/02/2024 . During an interview on 6/28/2024 at 1:17 PM, the DON said when she filled in for staff, she would usually sign the bottom of the Staffing Daily Posting. She said the Staff Daily Posting did not show her signature dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-04-06 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided with such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #8) of 2 resident reviewed for respiratory care, in that: -The facility failed to set the oxygen flow rate at 3 liters of oxygen per minute as ordered on 11/27/2023 for Resident #8. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of inadequate respiratory support or respiratory infections resulting in a decline in health. Findings included: Record review of Resident #8's Face Sheet (undated) revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident #8's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (A group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe) and dementia (A group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning). Record review of Resident #8's Comprehensive…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-04-20 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — patternHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed ensure, except when waived, to use the services of a registered nurse for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week. -The facility failed to ensure there was RN (Registered nurse) coverage on 1/8/23, 1/14/23, 1/21/23, 1/22/23, 2/4/23, 2/5/23, 2/26/23, 3/11/23, 3/12/23, 3/18/23, 3/19/23, 3/25/23, and 03/26/23. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their nursing and medical needs met. Findings Included: During an interview with the DON on 04/06/2023 at 10:05 AM, she stated she normally worked Monday- Friday, 8AM-5PM. She stated she works during the week and when available she works on the weekends. She stated the facility recently hired two RNs for the weekends. She stated for about 2 months, she was the only RN working at the facility. She stated during the times she was not physically at the facility; she was available by phone. She stated she signed a shift sign-in sheet on the days she was able to work on the weekends. She stated she did not really think there was a risk of her not being physically…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-04-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in one of one kitchen reviewed for food service safety, in that: The failure could place residents at risk of foodborne illness. -Staff personal items were stored with resident's food. -Items were not dated Findings include: Observation of the kitchen on 04/05/2022 at 8:15 AM, revealed 20 oz Coca Cola bottle of soda half empty in the refrigerator, no name or date, 1 can of Monster Energy Drink and 2 can sodas of Dr. Pepper in the refrigerator. During an interview on 04/05/2023 at 10:51AM with the Dietary Manager, he stated he had been employed at the facility for about 2 weeks. He stated the staff was to place their personal items in their lockers and stated they should not have their items placed with residents' items. He stated he will let the staff put their lunch in the refrigerator with the residents food, but if it was there longer than 30 minutes, he would throw the items away. He stated all…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-04-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection and prevention control program that included, at a minimum, a system for preventing and controlling infections for 1 of 1 resident observed for blood glucose monitor for (Resident #42) and 1 of 1 resident observed for feeding assistance (Resident #28). 1. LVN D failed to properly change gloves and wash or sanitize hands after providing blood glucose monitor to Resident #42. 2. CNA B failed to properly wash or sanitize her hands after scratching her head while providing feeding assistance to Resident #28. This deficient practice placed 1 of 1 resident who received frequent blood glucose monitoring and 1 of 1 resident require feeding assistance at risk for cross contamination and/or spread of infection. Findings include: Review of the Facesheet dated 04/06/23 revealed Resident #42 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Neuropathy, Bipolar…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-04-20 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #27) reviewed for indwelling catheter care. 1. Resident #27's indwelling catheter bag was undated. 2. Resident #27's electronic data chart had not record of indwelling catheter's last change or placement date. This deficient practice placed 2 residents who require indwelling catheter care and 86 residents who require electronic data charting at risk for errors in care and treatment. Findings include: Record Review Face Sheet dated 04/06/23 revealed Resident #27 is a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]'s diagnosis was Sepsis, Unspecified Organism, Personal History of Urinary Calculi, Neuromuscular Dysfunction of Bladder, Unspecified, and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia without Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. Record Review Resident #27's Care Plan last updated 04/03/23 revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-04-20 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to document if the resident received the pneumococcal immunization, Covid-19 vaccination, or the Mantoux tuberculin skin test due to medical contraindication or refusal for 1 of 9 residents (#83) whose medical records were reviewed for immunizations: 1. Resident #83's medical record had no immunization records being administered or refused. This deficient practice could affect 86 residents who were admitted since April 2021 and put them at risk for infection. The findings were: Record review of Resident #83's Face Sheet revealed an admission date of 01/23/2023 with diagnoses of Spondylosis, Wedge Compression Fracture of First Thoracic Vertebra, Initial Encounter for Closed Fracture, Atherosclerotic Heart Disease of Native Coronary Artery without Angina Pectoris and Obesity. Record review of Resident #83's most recent Care Plan revealed resident was at risk for infection related to Covid-19, will be offered flu/pneumonia vaccine per protocol. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to OAKBEND MEDICAL CENTER — 5 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OAKBEND MEDICAL CENTER | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/31/2017 |
| FREUDENBERGER, JOSEPH | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/19/2007 |
| COUNCIL, JEFF | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| CRAYTON, TOM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| DOUDS, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/19/2016 |
| HALEY, JEFF | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2012 |
| MARTIN, MELISSA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2015 |
| MEFFORD, RUTHANNE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2015 |
| PETROSEWICZ, NORMA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| POPATIA, AMIRALI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| UTHMAN, EDWARD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2008 |
| ZERWAS, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| SSC ALVIN OPERATING COMPANY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/31/2017 |
| THE LEV AT WINCHESTER LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2022 |
| SHKOP, AHARON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 676264. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-08, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.